Pick a state from the dropdown menu then scroll to "demographic drivers". The correlation is fairly tight and the winning candidate could be predicted based solely off educational attainment for a county.

Marines and Army are less educated than the air force and navy. The Air Force likes Trump the least and is probably the smartest branch. Marines are probably least educated and they like Trump the best. The correlation is perfect. Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force ordered with respect to intelligence and dislike of Trump in perfect correlation.

7) The majority of notable economists are liberal. Arrow, Hicks, Keynes, Tobin, Marx, Stigliz, Krugman, Wolff... Even conservative darling Milton Friedman advocated welfare via a negative income tax and was in favor of drug legalization, which makes him more liberal than most conservatives.

12)In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations.

Jost et al.'s (2003) meta-analysis confirms that several
psychological variables predict political conservatism. The list
includes death anxiety; system instability; dogmatism;
intolerance of ambiguity, low openness to experience, and
uncertainty; need for order, closure, and negative integrative
complexity; and fear of threat and loss of self-esteem.

We may conclude that, indeed, Conservatism at the individual
level and Broad Conservatism at the country level are
related to low performance on cognitive ability tests

Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

Given that cognitive abilities are critical in forming individuated
impressions of other people and in being openminded
(Scarr & Weinberg, 1981) and trusting of other people
(Sturgis et al., 2010), individuals with lower cognitive abilities
may gravitate toward more socially conservative right-wing
ideologies that maintain the status quo and provide psychological
stability and a sense of order (Jost et al., 2003). This
rationale is consistent with findings that less intelligent children
come to endorse more socially conservative ideologies as
adults (Deary et al., 2008; Schoon et al., 2010).

Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, while Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala.

The brain activity in these two regions alone could predict whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican with 82.9% accuracy.

The Amygdala is in the limbic system, which is the "lizard brain", the oldest part of the brain in terms of evolution and responsible for "fight or flight" and instinct.

The insula is in the cerebral cortex, which is the thinking part of the brain and much higher evolved, although we don't yet fully understand what role the insula plays.

The point is that when presented with risk, the democrat engages in deliberate thought while the republican responds like an animal... and this is 82.9% accurate.

(My personal theory is that the neuro-degeneration or malformation is a consequence of environmental stress, such as poverty, which could be a survival mechanism utilizing the over-expression of fear and hate of outgroups that may compete for scarce resources. When regarding the amygdala one should always think first of one word: fear. During this period of "exercising" the limbic system, the higher cerebral regions, such as the insula, are left to atrophy. Ironically, the deleterious effects are self-reinforcing causing one to support the political system that furthers the environmental stress which caused the situation in the first place.)

An important qualification was that the measure of verbal intelligence used was relatively crude, namely a 10-word vocabulary test.

A 10-question test is not a test. Furthermore, both conservatism and vocabulary are associated with age, so the study merely demonstrates that old republicans know more words than young liberals by virtue of having existed longer.

This is a "let's do it for the heck of it because we have the data handy" study and not real science. Suggesting republicans are verbally smarter can be refuted quite easily by simply observing one.

Limbaugh graduated from Cape Girardeau, Missouri Central High School in 1969. He played football.[11][12] Because of his parents' desire to see him attend college, he enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but left the school after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, "he flunked everything," and "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[7][13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Early_life

Liberty University (which teaches the earth is 6000 yrs old ) gave him an honorary degree (aka a handout), but being educated in baloney evidently doesn't count as an education since he's still generally regarded as smart in spite of his handout.

What's consistent is that birds of a feather flock together as the intellectually lazy seek relatable people since they aren't able to understand intellectual powerhouses, and profundity in general appears as nonsense to them. Instead of humbly admitting that they may not know something in order to then engage in learning, they arrogantly proclaim virtues of innate endowments of "common sense" that erode proportionately with education.

What's ironic here is that the people who drag the deserved down in order to lift the cognitively lazy up are the same people who are hypocritically against someone getting something for nothing.

By comparing within and across the election years, our analyses revealed the nature of support for Trump, including that support for Trump was better predicted by lower verbal ability than education or income. In general, these results suggest that the 2016 U.S. presidential election had less to do with party affiliation, income, or education and more to do with basic cognitive ability.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's pretty much incontrovertible. I do have a quibble: In #4 you used the term "free health care". There's no such thing. What you mean is tax-supported health care that's free at the point of service.

One other thing to point out, using IQ as an imperfect (but adequate) proxy for intelligence and this table, with standard deviation of 16 (i.e. Stanford-Binet).

The percent of people with mediocre IQ (80 to 105) is, roughly, 62.3-10.6 = 51.7. This shows that you can get a majority of votes by appealing to people who aren't that bright.

Moreover, that mediocre range can be and has been manipulated by slightly smarter group: IQ 120 to 130, which make up roughly 7.6% of the population. (97-89.4) Call them medium smart.

Really smart people, IQ at least 140, make up about 0.06% of the population. They're the ones that have heretofore run the country, not perfectly, but made it the richest country in the world since its inception. They're also the "elites" that the medium smart have convinced the mediocre to disdain.

Donald Trump represents an attempt at a grab of control by the medium-smart over the elite, by manipulating the mediocre.

Caveats:

1. All numbers are to be taken as roughly indicative, not as precise.

2. Intelligence is not the same scale as morality. Smart people can be evil. Idiots can be good.

Limbaugh graduated from Cape Girardeau, Missouri Central High School in 1969. He played football.[11][12] Because of his parents' desire to see him attend college, he enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but left the school after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, "he flunked everything," and "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[7][13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Early_life

Liberty University (which teaches the earth is 6000 yrs old ) gave him an honorary degree (aka a handout), but being educated in baloney evidently doesn't count as an education since he's still generally regarded as smart in spite of his handout.

What's consistent is that birds of a feather flock together as the intellectually lazy seek relatable people since they aren't able to understand intellectual powerhouses, and profundity in general appears as nonsense to them. Instead of humbly admitting that they may not know something in order to then engage in learning, they arrogantly proclaim virtues of innate endowments of "common sense" that erode proportionately with education.

What's ironic here is that the people who drag the deserved down in order to lift the cognitively lazy up are the same people who are hypocritically against someone getting something for nothing.

-snip-

This passage perfectly explains the conservative attitude toward intelligence, on display, every day in NHB.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

24) Conservatism is the proposition that education makes people dumber because they lose "common sense".

48 minutes ago, bludog said:

This passage perfectly explains the conservative attitude toward intelligence, on display, every day in NHB.

Plus, common sense is often dead wrong.

Almost everything about quantum mechanics defies common sense, which I'm learning with difficulty as I inch my way through chapter 2 in a book on quantum computing.

Common sense would tell people who hate homosexuality that there cannot be a genetics cause for homosexuality, the gene would not reproduce. They never think that 1) there may be multiple genetic causes, and 2) the causes may not be "a gene" but rather a collection of, (say, for example) 50 genes, each of which individually has survival benefit but when expressed in a some variant combinations result in varying levels of homosexuality.

Common sense told everyone everywhere, 2000 years ago, that the earth is flat. Believe your eyes, sandgrain? That's common sense!

Common sense told people that there must be an intelligent designer because of how fit the world is for life. More sophisticated knowledge of evolution tells us how fit millions of years of evolution have made life become for the world.

Common sense is folklore. It's how the great mass of common people manage get along. Geniuses know more and know better.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

2) the causes may not be "a gene" but rather a collection of, (say, for example) 50 genes, each of which individually has survival benefit but when expressed in a some variant combinations result in varying levels of homosexuality.

Common sense, along with the fear and loathing so frequent on the right, dictates that non-reproductive individuals have no survival benefit to the group. But counter to intuition, group lifestyles in early humans produced evolutionary pressure that eventually resulted in lifespans well beyond the reproductive years. Humans are the longest-lived of all the great apes. When we took up a nomadic lifestyle, on the ground, we diverged, markedly, from the rest of the ape family.

In the Pleistocene, small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers followed game and foraging opportunities. Intricate knowledge of the movements of different migratory species could mean the difference between survival of a clan or its disappearance. The same applied to knowledge of water sources, food plants, tubers and herbs. Older people accumulated more of such knowledge over their lifetimes so their presence in a clan conferred a distinct survival advantage. Clan members of childbearing age had a better chance to reproduce if there were elders in the clan, well past their reproductive years.. This led to groups with older humans passing on their genes more often than groups without elders. In this way, human lifespans gradually increased well beyond the rest of the great apes.

A theory related to homosexuality and derived from anthropological observations of tribal people is that, in humans, the survival advantage conferred on a group by homosexuals is the same advantage as grandparenting. In clans, homosexuals, usually having no children of their own, usually help with care of children of other parents. Humans put a lot of resources into raising children. The ones who get more and better support tend to mate with equally fortunate partners and are more likely to pass on their genes. Of course there are varying levels of homosexuality and in society's where they are not castigated, some homosexuals may fill a bisexual role.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Good points y'all. Common sense is what's readily apparent to even the dumbest among us which can often be described as a specious argument, that is: what's superficially sensible, but actually false. The entire litany of conservative ideals are specious and seemingly tailor-made to appeal to the most simian neurological processes reliant upon the fact that not much contemplation will be devoted to their actual truth.

The one I hate the most is "adversity engenders prosperity" and even Nietzsche fell into the trap with his "that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger", but if there were any truth to that the Hoods would be churning out the genii while the Hamptons would be crack central, the poorest schools would spawn the best scholars, and abusive parents would foster children on the fast track to fame and fortune. It's just common sense!

It's common sense that printing money causes prices to rise. Makes sense at first glance right? Nevermind the fact that price is purely a function of supply and demand where money supply is not a variable in the equation. No, don't pay attention to that. Disregard that Japan has printed more than anyone, yet deflation prevails and the yen continues its ascent. The important thing is that money be scarce because "adversity engenders prosperity"; it's just common sense! Who needs nobel laureate economists when we have trailer parks across the southeast plum filled with economists privy to all this common sense!

It's common sense that the universe be such a grand waste of energy filled with billions and billions of stars and galaxies galore, many more seeds than required, all part of a plan so that the pope can tell people where not to stick body parts.

That this should pass for wisdom is a sad commentary on the large segment of American society that subscribes to it. This woman is claiming she has direct communication with "the Lord". One might think it only "common sense" that the answer she received from "the Lord" is entirely fiction. It certainly has nothing to do with scripture. It has everything to do with the Cult of Ignorance which is like a cancer on our Nation.

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's traditional, and goes back at least as far as Martin Luther, a genuine scumbag. Some of his quotes:

"The damned whore Reason...."

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word...."

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."

I take it personally. More Luther quotes:

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."

"What shall we do with...the Jews? I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's traditional, and goes back at least as far as Martin Luther, a genuine scumbag. Some of his quotes:

Yes, I forgot about Luther, thanks for the reminder!

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

So, all we need to do is establish some minimum level of education and/or intelligence as a prerequisite for voting?

They're dying off:

From here we just need to ensure the people are adequately educated and practiced in critical thinking, even if it's merely doing things like math and science because I think such practice better-equips one to apply such skills to other areas, like politics.

Plus we need to learn to admit when we are wrong and stop being so arrogant.

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong

Julia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists. A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly, willingly admit it when they are wrong.

To do this, she, along with some colleagues, started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project. It’s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings. The effort recently yielded a paper that includes six admissions of no confidence. And it’s accepting submissions until January 31.

Max Planck said: This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact; a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/25/progress/

That's the sad reality of the matter.

Every beer consumed on sunday is a toast to those who can no longer vote to take that right away.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

it's very interesting. Just because someone doesn't have the education or is not exposed on a daily basis to what liberal arts education brings, like others who do have it, does not mean that they do not have the same abilities. I often think that many folks have been short-changed, ripped off, fooled, whatever you want to call it. They have been sold a lie.

Not that everybody should be an astrophysicist, but the fact is that for most standardized tests, it is important to know what kids or people have been exposed to in their daily lives.

Human beings are incredibly intelligent. Human beings have powerful emotions. There's some kind of Venn diagram that would possibly indicate how world views affect a persons ability to discern ones capability to employ critical thinking concepts in any endeavor.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

this made me think of an interesting tidbit or factoid a friend shared with me the other day - I think he got it from a Snapple bottle cap. Squirrels hide away the nuts they gather, but unfortunately they are only able to retrieve about 10 percent of those nuts that they hide away. Something like this for would indicate a huge problem for humans in the collective.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My theory is conservatism is more correlated to poverty (or whatever constitutes environmental stress, especially in early years of life) and it's purely coincidental that poverty correlates to lack of education and refinement of cognitive faculties due to the constant struggle to survive.

The stress and struggle causes the brain to form differently than if the stress had been absent and those differences amplify fear which results in disdain for competition for scarce resources, such as immigrants and freeloaders.

They resort to religion in their dire straits for a source of comfort and to focus on another life instead of this hopeless one. They amass arsenals of firearms for protection from something that is exceedingly unlikely to ever happen.

Ironically, their actions reinforce their predicament by contributing to what caused the stress and struggle in the first place. And nothing can break the cycle because the hardware just isn't there, or is so attenuated that it's essentially inaccessible.

It's a sad state of affairs and I'd never truly fault another person, but more the system that caused such mess, even though I get angry at those supporting their own oppression, and the oppression of others I care about, for the benefit of the opulent that they idolize.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is the questioning of the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The problem under Trump is the hollowing out of this incredibly important Consumers Bureau. This is questioning by Katie Porter is critical pure and simple.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My theory is conservatism is more correlated to poverty (or whatever constitutes environmental stress, especially in early years of life) and it's purely coincidental that poverty correlates to lack of education and refinement of cognitive faculties due to the constant struggle to survive.

The stress and struggle causes the brain to form differently than if the stress had been absent and those differences amplify fear which results in disdain for competition for scarce resources, such as immigrants and freeloaders.

They resort to religion in their dire straits for a source of comfort and to focus on another life instead of this hopeless one. They amass arsenals of firearms for protection from something that is exceedingly unlikely to ever happen.

Ironically, their actions reinforce their predicament by contributing to what caused the stress and struggle in the first place. And nothing can break the cycle because the hardware just isn't there, or is so attenuated that it's essentially inaccessible.

It's a sad state of affairs and I'd never truly fault another person, but more the system that caused such mess, even though I get angry at those supporting their own oppression, and the oppression of others I care about, for the benefit of the opulent that they idolize.

I disagree. I don't think any of what you have shown shows the capability of how the brain can change, even in adulthood.